Google has a big flaw

While I agree that for a small site to get natual links is quiet hard.

However, I feel there lies a greater issue and it has been talked about many times.

Take wikipedia for instance, it ranks quite well for most articles on the internet, but who wrote thoes original articles? Well probably small sites that people found through google. (Although this may be common, there are a few people who write original content into WikiPedia).

So your site about topic X is now out ranked by Wikipedia on google, just because somebody started even a TAB on wikipedia for your topic and it has no original content as yet.

Wikipedia is an example of this. But even other good sites, Techcrunch, digg, digitalpoint, once somebody writes an artile on these sites that your site is targeting they could become a competitor, even though its only one small bit of the topic.

The issues with thoes sites is that they have so many sites linking to them that their PR filters quite well, so every page on a major site like techcrunch has at least a PR3.

But thats just my take on this, and not talking about news sites in general.

As for news sites, and all media, well they usualy cut out any sort of advertising relating to a website and rephrase it, if its what somebody has said. If however they are using material directly from your site then you are required to reference, but not link. I dislike ZdNet for this, because they talk about a site but do NOT give a link about the site, so you have to google for a site that hasnt been indexed.

Pierce

 

Agree with everyone who said Google is a business because they never declared themselves otherwise.

Now let's look back in history.

Before Google, there was Microsoft, Excite, Yahoo and some others I can't remember. Oh! APPLE!!! nearly forgot.

 

haha, that's true.

I mean I wish things were indexed a little better, I know google has the manpower to accomplish this.

 

That's the question I was going to ask. What ARE you talking about?

Nonsense. Your premise is incorrect. Your conclusion is also incorrect.

Incorrect.

It's not about luck. It's about quality. If you have a crap site, no one is going to link to you unless you buy the link. Offer something unique and something of quality and people will link to you without asking.

The problem "logic" isn't Google's - it's yours. You're just plain wrong.

Perfect. You start with an incorrect premise which leads you to an erroneous conclusion which in turn leads you directly to another Google conspiracy theory.

Total nonsense.

 

G is not a monopoly. If G gobbled up Y!, Ask, and Live. then maybe...

G does things that piss off independent publishers, but what have they done that could be interpreted as antitrust behavior?

Try this: type in the search term "search engine" and check out the first 5 hits.

 

Google will never become a monopoly though. They can't buy out Yahoo nor live.

 

and why would they want to? Y! and MSN have tried to replicate the success of Adwords and so far have come up short.
Adwords is kickass. I don't like to admit it, but it's true.

G walks with a cocky swagger because their brand is super strong. But they've earned it. So I recommend to all: play the game; create great content and be patient.

and here's a final thought: search the Internet

 

Googles interest is in providing the most relevant results possible to people searchning.

I'd like to see anyone suggest a better step than discounting paid links.
And I'd like to see a better system than the link vote system.

 

Wtf, why is google not on the first page?

 

Yes, that's true. Competiton is good for everyone - it raises the stacks.

 

Fantastic post.

 

Ohhh, the big man has spoken...shit
At least have the decency to explain why am i writing "nonsence" and why your "nonsence, again nonsence, wrong, plain wrong, again nonsence" shit, crap, stupid text should be considered true or good?

Go marry google if you like it so much and let it put it in you few times

 

HAHAHAHAHA

Seriously though, I agree with you. If I'm going to call someones argument 'nonsense', I'll usually find some evidence to back up my claim.

Not that I'm agreeing or disagreeing with what the guy is saying.

 

Pointing out that your post is utter nonsense isn't necessarily defending Google. It's just pointing out that your post is utter nonsense.

That's spelled "nonsense", again "nonsense".

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

If I try to claim that the sky is green and you say, "Nonsense. That's not true", how much evidence would you supply to prove that the sky isn't green?

In point of fact, I did provide my reasons:

I'll spell it out for you: The premise is that bigger sites do not link to smaller PR sites unless they use no-follow or otherwise mask it. That's nonsense. Wrong. Utterly untrue. I have several higher PR sites linking to me. Those are not paid links. They are not arranged links. They are organic links - they were created because someone liked one or more of the pages on one of my sites. This is not an isolated occurrence. In the years my main site has been up, it has happened numerous times.

So the premise is wrong.

The conclusion - i.e., that "all that bullshit about natural quality backlinks falls into water" - is therefore also wrong. Incorrect. Utter nonsense.

I also said this:

I've already provided evidence for this above. My own practices for outgoing links are further evidence. Less than a year ago (to be specific, January 12, 2007), I was informed of a small unique start-up forum, WeBiteBack.com, which vat the time was PR0. I linked to that site from at least two of my sites and wrote a review on my blog and started a thread on my forum about it, even though it was just getting going at the time, because I felt it was useful content that would be of interest to my readers. I didn't know any of the owners of that site. They didn't ask me for anything. I didn't ask for anything in return and didn't expect anything. Today, that forum has 2535 registered users and PR3, and is growing rapidly. They learned of my review and linked back to my forum as a resource for their forum members. They have since been interviewed for newspaper articles (published online) and other web articles, which has provided them with additional incoming links, again without buying or arranging those links.

THAT is what organic linking is all about. I thought their site was worthwhile. They thought mine would be useful to their members. My PR helped them. Theirs continues to help mine. No "artificial link exchanges" or "paid links". Natural linking. Organic linking. That's it. That's all.

The OP is hysterical nonsense from beginning to end.